A comparison of three gastric lavage methods using the radionuclide gastric emptying study

Position paper: gastric lavage

Gastric lavage should not be employed routinely, if ever, in the management of poisoned patients. In experimental studies, the amount of marker removed by gastric lavage was highly variable and diminished with time. The results of clinical outcome studies in overdose patients are weighed heavily on the side of showing a lack of beneficial effect. Serious risks of the procedure include hypoxia, dysrhythmias, laryngospasm, perforation of the GI tract or pharynx, fluid and electrolyte abnormalities, and aspiration pneumonitis. Contraindications include loss of protective airway reflexes (unless the patient is first intubated tracheally), ingestion of a strong acid or alkali, ingestion of a hydrocarbon with a high aspiration potential, or risk of GI hemorrhage due to an underlying medical or surgical condition. A review of the 1997 Gastric Lavage Position Statement revealed no new evidence that would require a revision of the conclusions of the Statement.

Does gastric lavage really push poisons beyond the pylorus? A systematic review of the evidence

Classically, treatment of acute self-poisoning involves resuscitation and supportive care, followed by gastric emptying, administration of activated charcoal, and use of specific antidotes. Recently, however, the practice of gastric emptying has fallen out of favor in the West because physicians have recognized its complications and the lack of evidence for clinical benefit from its practice. Authoritative position statements have stated that forced emesis should not be used and that gastric lavage should be used in restricted settings. One commonly cited complication of gastric lavage is propulsion of poison beyond the pyloric sphincter into the small bowel. We have carried out a systematic search for studies addressing this issue and found only 2. The first, a randomized controlled trial of patients presenting to an emergency department, reported propulsion of poison into the small bowel and has been widely cited as showing evidence for such a complication. However, analysis of the data presented in this article shows no significant difference in the number of radio-opaque marker pellets present in the small bowel after gastric lavage, ipecac-induced forced emesis, or no intervention. The second, an observational study using human volunteers, showed significantly less poison in the small bowel after gastric lavage than after no intervention. In conclusion, it seems that no published data support the statement that gastric lavage forces poison into the small bowel.

The role of activated charcoal and gastric emptying in gastrointestinal decontamination: a state-of-the-art review

Gastrointestinal decontamination has been practiced for hundreds of years; however, only in the past few years have data emerged that demonstrate a clinical benefit in some patients. Because most potentially toxic ingestions involve agents that are not toxic in the quantity consumed, the exact circumstances in which decontamination is beneficial and which methods are most beneficial in those circumstances remain important topics of research. Maximum benefit from decontamination is expected in patients who present soon after the ingestion. Unfortunately, many overdose patients present at least 2 hours after taking a medication, when most of the toxin has been absorbed or has moved well into the intestine, beyond the expected reach of gastrointestinal decontamination. Decontamination probably does not contribute to the outcome of many such patients, especially those without symptoms. However, if absorption has been delayed or gastrointestinal motility has been slowed, activated charcoal may reduce the final amount absorbed. The use of activated charcoal in these cases may be beneficial and is associated with few complications. Therefore, administration of activated charcoal is recommended as soon as possible after emergency department presentation, unless the agent and quantity are known to be nontoxic, the agent is known not to adsorb to activated charcoal, or the delay has been so long that absorption is probably complete. The use of gastric emptying in addition to activated charcoal has generated intense debate. Several large comparative studies have failed to demonstrate a benefit of gastric emptying before activated charcoal. Because complications of such 2-step decontamination include a higher rate of intubation, aspiration, and ICU admission, gastric emptying in addition to activated charcoal cannot be considered the routine approach to patients. However, there are several infrequent circumstances in which the data are inadequate to accurately assess the potential benefit of gastric emptying in addition to activated charcoal: symptomatic patients presenting in the first hour after ingestion, symptomatic patients who have ingested agents that slow gastrointestinal motility, patients taking sustained release medications, and those taking massive or life-threatening amounts of medication. These circumstances represent only a small subset of ingestions. In the absence of convincing data about benefit or lack of benefit of gastric emptying for these patients, individual physicians must act on a personal valuation: Is it better to use a treatment that might have some benefit but definitely has some risk or not to use a treatment that has any risk unless there is proven benefit?

Gastrointestinal decontamination after poisoning. Where is the science?

The approach to the use of gastrointestinal decontamination procedures in the treatment of ingested toxins has changed in recent years. Many toxicologists and physicians have taken strong positions either for or against the use of emesis, gastric lavage, activated charcoal, or other procedures. What is the scientific basis for these positions? This article reviews and comments on the published studies comparing the effectiveness of these widely used procedures.